7 ms·

In today’s world though Google or FB decommissioning that product segment is just as likely. Just because it is Google doesn’t mean they will spend every last p

by harikb 7y ago

In today’s world though Google or FB decommissioning that product segment is just as likely. Just because it is Google doesn’t mean they will spend every last penny to keep it running. Once it stop becoming profitable, you better figure out what to do with your data. Hopefully one still has the primary local copy and not wondering how to do bulk download Apart from that I agree this non-profit competition should only be used to kill industries that charge an exorbitant amount for there services. At least many of the popular cloud storage companies are as “non-outrageous-profit” as it gets. They make money from efficiency/dedup or other management efficiency

cocktailpeanuts 7y ago
Yes, i am just pointing out a simple thing here. At least Google is not lying. They don't claim they will "permanently" store private data forever for free. These guys are. And while doing so, using companies like Google as the devil in order to present themselves as the savior. It's almost like a conman claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine and asking people for money, and furthermore, going around criticizing all the other people who build and sell normal machines are the bad guys for selling inferior products.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > They don't claim they will "permanently" store private data forever for free. These guys are. No, they're not. They're claiming they will permanently store private data for a one-time fee.
  - cocktailpeanuts 7y ago
    Yes you're right. In fact the fact that they are asking for you money is what ticks me off the most. Let me put it this way instead. They are essentially saying they will pay for the hosting and data access usage and networking costs forever, and you can enjoy all these things for free forever, if you "only" pay an upfront cost. And that's a lie. There's no such thing as forever, especially if it's run by beings that won't be around forever. The scammy people behind this initiative will all die in hundred years. Without an economically viable model, it will all go. In my eyes, what they are doing is essentially trying to make it big with a one time splash, and don't care what happens next. No different from all the scammy blockchain ICOs that promise "forever immutable storage".
    - JCharante 7y ago
      So it's a ponzi scheme for cloud storage dependent on people continuing to pay to store new items in order for them to pay for their current costs. Although the idea is to create a fund and operate off the interest. Let's look at their prices. $1000 for 100 Gigabytes or $100 for 10 Gigabytes. Basically it's $10/GB. With like a very safe dividend allocation they can probably get a 2% annual return on their investments, which means they need to only spend $0.20/year on my 1GB of data. They say their plan is perfect for phone or hard drive backups, and they offer continuous file migration. Let's say I completely replace the contents of my GB every 3 months. We can't use AWS S3 One-zone because they advertise "Redudant backup". S3 Standard Infrequent access is $0.0125 per GB per month, so that's $0.15/year/GB. Maybe they can use AWS S3 Glacier although I'm not exactly sure how it'd work with the continuous migrations. That would be $0.048/year/GB which is a lot more feasible. Data ingress into AWS is free, but egress isn't. If we download our GB 4 times per year that's $0.04 in egress. There's also some costs for PUT, COPY, POST, LIST, GET, SELECT requests, so let's say that for our 1 GB it'll amount to $0.01 per year. That means it'll cost us $0.098/year/GB for our storage service that we can only download from 4 times/year and does not give us millisecond-access to our data. I'm sure they can find a storage solution that's cheaper than using AWS S3 Standard Infrequent Access so they still have a good response time for data, but overall it seems feasible.
      - cocktailpeanuts 7y ago
        if these people actually cared about people owning their own data, they would have released a toolkit or an application that lets each individual do what you've just described. Instead of asking for money.
        mmastrac 7y ago
        This is a somewhat ridiculous position. If I hope to preserve data for my children, I'm not going to hand them a box with jerry-rigged software and hardware that they then have to maintain. I want someone to maintain that for them. If I'm looking for my blog, or my tweets, or a set of family photos and videos to live on forever, I absolutely want them under control of a foundation that outlives me and my relatives interest in maintaining that data.
  - dwighttk 7y ago
    they offered me a gigabyte for free

by harikb 7y ago

cocktailpeanuts 7y ago

Yes, i am just pointing out a simple thing here. At least Google is not lying. They don't claim they will "permanently" store private data forever for free. These guys are. And while doing so, using companies like Google as the devil in order to present themselves as the savior. It's almost like a conman claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine and asking people for money, and furthermore, going around criticizing all the other people who build and sell normal machines are the bad guys for selling inferior products.

luckylion 7y ago
> They don't claim they will "permanently" store private data forever for free. These guys are. No, they're not. They're claiming they will permanently store private data for a one-time fee.
- cocktailpeanuts 7y ago
  Yes you're right. In fact the fact that they are asking for you money is what ticks me off the most. Let me put it this way instead. They are essentially saying they will pay for the hosting and data access usage and networking costs forever, and you can enjoy all these things for free forever, if you "only" pay an upfront cost. And that's a lie. There's no such thing as forever, especially if it's run by beings that won't be around forever. The scammy people behind this initiative will all die in hundred years. Without an economically viable model, it will all go. In my eyes, what they are doing is essentially trying to make it big with a one time splash, and don't care what happens next. No different from all the scammy blockchain ICOs that promise "forever immutable storage".
  - JCharante 7y ago
    So it's a ponzi scheme for cloud storage dependent on people continuing to pay to store new items in order for them to pay for their current costs. Although the idea is to create a fund and operate off the interest. Let's look at their prices. $1000 for 100 Gigabytes or $100 for 10 Gigabytes. Basically it's $10/GB. With like a very safe dividend allocation they can probably get a 2% annual return on their investments, which means they need to only spend $0.20/year on my 1GB of data. They say their plan is perfect for phone or hard drive backups, and they offer continuous file migration. Let's say I completely replace the contents of my GB every 3 months. We can't use AWS S3 One-zone because they advertise "Redudant backup". S3 Standard Infrequent access is $0.0125 per GB per month, so that's $0.15/year/GB. Maybe they can use AWS S3 Glacier although I'm not exactly sure how it'd work with the continuous migrations. That would be $0.048/year/GB which is a lot more feasible. Data ingress into AWS is free, but egress isn't. If we download our GB 4 times per year that's $0.04 in egress. There's also some costs for PUT, COPY, POST, LIST, GET, SELECT requests, so let's say that for our 1 GB it'll amount to $0.01 per year. That means it'll cost us $0.098/year/GB for our storage service that we can only download from 4 times/year and does not give us millisecond-access to our data. I'm sure they can find a storage solution that's cheaper than using AWS S3 Standard Infrequent Access so they still have a good response time for data, but overall it seems feasible.
    - cocktailpeanuts 7y ago
      if these people actually cared about people owning their own data, they would have released a toolkit or an application that lets each individual do what you've just described. Instead of asking for money.
      - mmastrac 7y ago
        This is a somewhat ridiculous position. If I hope to preserve data for my children, I'm not going to hand them a box with jerry-rigged software and hardware that they then have to maintain. I want someone to maintain that for them. If I'm looking for my blog, or my tweets, or a set of family photos and videos to live on forever, I absolutely want them under control of a foundation that outlives me and my relatives interest in maintaining that data.
- dwighttk 7y ago
  they offered me a gigabyte for free